The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Theory of Evolution is valid (Take Two)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
pufferfish85 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 103563
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Evolution is defined as change of allele frequencies over successive generations and the saubsequent diversification of life due to various factors.

Endogenous retroviruses, avida simulation and phylogentics make up some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory.

Rules: start off with 3 arguments max. Absolutely no gish galloping.

If you're going to take part in debate, do not forfeit rounds. If you are unable to make an argument, post your argument as "forfeiting round," and I will do the same

All that said and done, I'm off to make myself a cuppa.


As the con speaker in this debate round I will provide some points of clarification as well as three points of refutation.

- My opponent has essentially defined evolution as changes of alleles over successive generations. I would imagine my opponent is referring to the general concept of macroscopic evolution (large scale changes) as opposed to microscopic evolution (microscopic changes).
- Microscopic evolution is a perfectly valid and proven theory. With that said my argumentation will center around the claim that macroscopic evolution is an unproven and invalid theory.

1. Lack of Fossil Record - One of the core philosophies of evolution is lots of time. One result of enormous amounts of time is an enormous amount of fossils. With the idea of macro evolution, an organism undergoes progressive changes over numerous generations. What this implies, is that there would be many generations that live and die during this progressive change. However, decades of fossil research has discovered practically no evidence of macro evolution.

2. Adaption vs. Evolution - Often adaption is confused with evolution. For example, humans are white, black, and every color in between. This isn't a result of genetic evolution, it is a result of adaption to the environment. This same principle is applicable most instances of claimed evolution.

3. Evolution is stupid - because it is. I dont feel like typing out another reason. lmao
Debate Round No. 1


I figure I might as well structure the rest of my response. It's something I'll have to get used to.


With regards to Con's clarification, there are a few problems. Micro and macro evolution are the exact same thing. If con wishes to make a distinction between the two, that is fine, but it comes with the caveat that micro and macro are the exact same; the only difference being time.

I would also like to point out that "proof" does not belong in a discussion pertaining to science. Proof belongs in mathematics s the answers arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature. This is not the case with science. In science, we deal with evidence, not proof. A small technicality, but an important one to make.

Con's Arguments

i) The fossil record is of course imperfect. Very few animals become fossilised as the process for fossilisation requires a very specific set of circumstances. That's the reason for the lack of fossils.

Furthermore, whilst the fossil record is imperfect, we see many indications of evoltuion occurring via the study of these fossils. Gogonasus is one such example. For instance, the pectoral fin of Gogonasus shows striking similarities with regards to the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik. However, this could be homoplasy between Gogonasus and early tetrapods [1].

So how about another example? How about Australopithecus Afarensis? Specifically, let's talk about Lucy (AL 288-1). This find forms one of the more important examples as Lucy's pelvis structure, vertebrae and femur strongly suggests bipedality [2].

ii) Con claims that adaption is different from evolution and that skin tones are because of adaption to the environment. Whilst I am myself not too sure of how different skin tones first originated, Con’s claim that adaption to environmental factors is not evolution is quite frankly, ridiculous. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, so it therefore puzzles me how Con can claim that populations of organisms adapting to their environment is not evolution.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Oh for crying out loud. God, I hate it when people forfeit. Guy hasn't even signed back in for 3 days. Well, I guess that means another debate is being made.
Posted by brian.bors7 11 months ago
Hey Backwardseden,

I have watched Frontline. Super-bugs are indeed a thing. I think you know and are correct about how the world works but are using incorrect words to describe the process of science. Evolution is a scientific theory (and is likely to be a correct model of how the world works).
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
@byaka2013 There's always some creationist hiding in the woodworks tbh. You would have thought they would know better by now. But there's always someone.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Thank you brian.bors7 + smurfy101

As for @backwardseden, yes you are confused. If you say something like this, "Evolution is proven fact. Its not a theory. No one can refute this," then you are very confused. Regardless of your good intentions, you are extremely misinformed on the matter.

Scientific theories are falsifiable. They can be shown to be wrong and evolution is a scientific theory - it explains how evolution takes place. Scientific theories are not facts in of themselves, they explain the facts. If creationists can show competent evidence against the theory of evolution, then the theory can either be rescinded or improved upon. of course, creationists can't do that because they don't know what the blazes they're talking about. If a scientific theory was unfalsifiable, then it wouldn't be scientific. It would actually be pseudo-science.

Also, science does not concern itself with proof. Mathematics alone deals with proof as the answered arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature. You cannot achieve "proof" in science. What science deals with is evidence, not proof. The joke of "you can only find proof in maths and alcohol" comes to mind.

No-one's denying the matter of super-bugs. Super-bugs exist, we know that. It's how these super-bugs come to be makes up the theory of evolution.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@brian.bors7 - allele frequencies has nothing to do with "superbugs" or "antibiotic resistant microbes". Now did you watch the Frontline episode?
Posted by brian.bors7 11 months ago

Evolution is a well supported scientific theory that is supported by well documented facts (like the fact that allele frequencies change over successive generations). I think Spud is correct.
Posted by byaka2013 11 months ago
The only person who would possible accept this debate is Purushadasa.
Posted by smurfy101 11 months ago
@backwardseden the theory of evolution EXPLAINS WHY antibiotic resistance is happening. But even before that, evolution was considered theory, and therefore had no evidence contradicting it, meaning it was considered fact (they are not mutually exclusive as your first comment insinuates).
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@Spud What on earth are you talking about? No I'm not talking about that at all. Nor am I confused about anything. Try looking up "superbugs" or "antibiotic resistant microbes" which has nothing to do with what you stated. It is proven fact that evolution is taking place in the here and the now. Its irrefutable. Repeating: Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. And to help you out from a very recent UPDATED episode from PBS's Frontline...
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
@backwardseden Evolution is a fact in the sense that allele frequencies change over successive generations. However, the explanation of this pnhenomena is a scientific theory - you're confusing the "theory" in the vernacular with a scientific theory.

@Vi-spex Got no idea what you're talking about. With that I'm off to bed.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.